Maryland police fatally shoot man after refusing to give up his gun in his own home. Your thoughts?

Two police officers ordered to remove firearms from a house on a "red flag" protective order fatally shot an armed man Monday morning in Ferndale, Maryland, police said. Anne Arundel County Police arrived at the house at 5:17 a. m. to remove guns from the home under a new law that temporarily allows for the seizure of firearms if a person shows "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others...

... It wasn't clear why the "red flag" order was issued. A spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary denied a request from the Baltimore Sun to release protection order requests associated with the home, citing the law which states the orders are confidential unless a court rules otherwise.

Most Helpful Guys

Listen to police, so you don't get shot. Pretty simple. If a person has an issue with something the police are trying to do, you don't take that issue up with the police. You take that issue up with a judge. Sorry, but it takes some dumbassery to not listen to police or actively attack them.

It's like... A bear comes into your house and opens your fridge. ... Get the fuck out of the kitchen and let the bear do what it wants, then go call some animal control center.

Hmmm. Well, I'm not very fond of guns. But, under the current laws, I do think there should be some transparency when it comes to this "red flag" issue. Just randomly claiming, "Yeah, na, this guy couldn't have guns." isn't really a good argument.

"Maryland's law, which went into effect Oct. 1, is more broad in that it allows certain health care providers to seek an order, in addition to family members and law enforcement."

If family members or health care providers sent up a red flag, that's more defensible, in my opinion. It's kinda the same topic with your freedom. If you express suicidal or homicidal thoughts, a psychologist can send you to rehab. And cops can come out to check you out if family members call and say "He's threatening to kill himself." and also escort you to the hospital, i. e. rehab. I learned that the hard way.

That said, it should still probably be transparent what the red flag was. Unless the family doesn't want to release it or something.

If they had a warrant, and he posed a threat, then the shooting was probably justified. I would like to see the body camera footage (if there is any).

As much as I support the Second Amendment, it doesn't supersede a search and seize warrant or apply to a non-law-abiding person, even if the incident occurred in the person's home. If the police had done nothing following the warning signs and another mass shooting had taken place, we'd be having yet another stagnant debate over gun control and mental health while also wondering why authorities did nothing ahead of time to stop this particular person.

Most Helpful Girls

I don’t know the law or the reasons why. So long as there is due process. There should have been a process by which this order was evaluated and issued and there should be a way for him to challenge following removal. Nor were the circumstances of the shooting described so it makes it hard to know where I land on this.

Wow pretty shocking, I thought you of all people on here can see how wrong this whole thing is. This is a police force forcibly coming into a mans home and seizing his guns. There will be worse laws like this coming I bet too

What Girls & Guys Said

Total BS law and officers. Doesn't the Second amendment mean anything anymore and couldn't they have done things differently like distract the man while officers sneaked in the back way to his house or used non lethal force like a taser gun. Seems like officers these days are trigger happy.

I wish there was a video on this so I could see the exact time and justification for why the police shot this man. It doesn’t matter that the shooting was at his house, more so than whether or not he was a threat to the officers. So, if he was waving his gun at the officers, whilst in his home, the justification for him being shot is clear. I think it’s hard to form an opinion based on a news article’s wording of what happened. Maybe there will be a video in the future and the audience can decide whether or not the officers were justified in their shoot

My first thought is belligerent crazy guy gets shot why should i care. There are a lot of people in this world with no respect for laws and authority anymore. Having said that the 4th amendment exists for a reason. it's our defense against tyranny from an overreaching gov't. Oppression can take many forms and in the modern world it's disguised as "the greater good". This article said the man initially complied with officers but when they tried to seize his weapons that's when a fight ensued. Unfortunately we may never know whether this could have been avoided or not.

@Girther10 well etiher one could apply in this case. I used the 4th amendment because there was no mention of a warrant. They could have showed up at his house and said we've been told you have guns could we see them and he could've come back with i don't and they could have said may we search you home to which he could have said "do you have a warrant? "If not no you may not". the 4th amendment protects him in this case. Obviously being a gun enthusiast his attitude was it's not against the law for me to own a gun.

While I support the idea of buying back guns from people who do show red flags, what constitutes it, they should alert the citizen maybe beforehand and bring him in for an evaluation. Course in my opinion there should be an evaluation for everyone purchasing a gun anyway with a registry license that is updated every two years anyway.

But, it's a slippery slope we need to be careful of as not to infringed on peoples right. But not doing anything at all does nothing to help alleviate the situation. While I tend to side with the victim of murder, especially when it's at the hands of police, this man seemed to be non compliant while also holding the gun in his hand. But i think the police could have handled it much better.

But then again, I guess what the state can (read should) learn from this is that the reason for red flags should be made clear, it can not be made secret because then you could just declare anyone a red flag and take their guns. That would set a dangerous precedent.

In a better world, the guy would have given up but then went to court for this idea of mine. At least that's what I would have done in his stead, ideally.

I am not sure what to think on this. A part of the things he should have just complied but the other part thinks the wether or not there heis an order or not iI don't think its right for people to seize weapons firearms whatever. I'm going to have do research on the law. Also why didn't the family try taking them 1st before bringing law enforcement into it.

Because it's not the families duty. They could be victims as most gun deaths are at the hands of someone they knew. Plus, if they now had the gun they would be turning it in anyway or keeping it l, making it I'll as they didn't purchase it.

These liberals are eventually going to take them from us all and I’d rather sell them and get $ for them now rather them being steamrolled like they did in Australia. I’ll keep my shotgun though for home defense and hunting.

Personally I have an issue with any gun control baring a proven case of past or current violence and mental illness of the nature where one is not dealing with reality or the potential for that is greatly increased.

As far as I’m concerned the 2nd Amendment is very clear. Gun rights are not to be infringed. The Constitution contains within it what’s called the Supremacy Clause (SC). The SC states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no state or persons shall make laws which nullify or change what’s in the Constitution. Additionally there are procedures listed in the Constitution to remove or add to it. A 2/3rds vote of states is required that has not taken place.

States do have the rights to make laws but not laws which nullify what’s in the Constitution. Many will argue that the purpose of the Supreme Court and lower courts is to interoperate what the Constitution says and uphold or strike down laws accordingly. This is where I have a major problem.

If we want to know what the Constitution says we’re fortunate to have many letters and political writings of the very men who wrote it to refer to. I can cite no less than 10 quotes from the men who wrote the Constitution, one from George Washington himself stating they (the Constitutions authors) intended for the average man to be the militia (non professional soldiers) and for them to own, possess and carry arms and ammunition. They clearly identify the common man as the militia, NOT the National Guard or any other such institution.

Many leftists love to state the “Constitution is a living and breathing document and is therefore flexible”. I would strongly disagree. It means exactly what it says and we need look no further than the men who wrote it to know what it means as they told us their intent and they ought to know what it means as they wrote it.

That said my issue is with the judges and law makers who enact and uphold gun control legislation and other such legislation as

What I see are political oppointies who were and are placed in power by likeminded men with intent to subvert the Constitution. They are traitors seeking to steer things towards their own ends and disregard the letter and rule of law and do so knowingly and intentionally. They are enemies of the country from within. They have an unamerican political agenda, and seek to subvert this country.

I’d additionally add another argument that gets tossed around is the term militia. These leftists want say that’s the National Guard. As I already stated that’s not how the Constitutions framers saw it. The definition of militia is non professional soldiers, not reserve soldiers who have been formally trained and equipped by the U. S. government and paced under individual states authority, though they do answer to the federal government as well.

Taking into consideration legal precedent there have been numerous pieces of legislation from individual state constitutions

To other laws upholding the right to bear arms and identifying who the militia was.

The Militia Act of 1792 states all able bodied American males were to own sufficient arms and ammunition as well as a knapsack and a few other items to be used for military purposes and combat. It further stated that they were to train with these items.

In 1795 another Militia act was passed by congress which further mirrored the provisions of the one passed in 1792.

In 1862 another militia act was passed which included blacks in it and took nothing away from the 2 proceeding militia acts.

In 1903 another militia act was passed which divided the militia into 2 categories all able bodied me from the ages of 17 to 45 were placed in the unorganized militia (the common man) and established the National Guard further amendments were added to the act which limited terms of service and explained organizational structure and mandatory training periods of the National Guard etc. In no place was the common

In any of these pieces of legislation was the right to keep and bear arms nullified or limited. Also once formal training regimens were mandated so the National Guard did not meet the definition of militia (untrained soldiers)

There you have legal precedence further backing the Constitution and it’s framers. At no point is gun control advocated or allowed especially in terms of the militia, rather all those laws support the original 1792 Militia act mandating owning arms and ammunition and training with with. IT WAS LAW TO OWN GUNS AND AMMO INTENDED FOR COMBAT form the very foundation of this country.

Fast forward to the 1960’s and to current time and we see laws enacted limiting gun ownership which violate the Constitution and are not in keeping with long standing legal prescient. Why? Because there are men seeking to subvert our nations laws and make this republic into no more than another European style country governed by European style laws. This is not Europe, it’s America.

Lastly the argument has been made that the Constitutions framers could never have imagined the capacity of modern firearms as they did not exist then. Yeah and? That’s my response to that. Clearly they intended for the assault rifle of its time and certainly ours to be in the hands of the militia who is clearly defined as all able bodied American males (and by extension females) to own said weapons for the purpose of aiding a standing army during an invasion or time of national crisis or Incase the federal government became tyrannical. We must remember the purpose of the Constitution is not only to grant and affirm rights, but to LIMIT the power of the federal government. Also they did NOT say the military can have muskets (the assault rifle of the day) and the common man or militia only swords or dirks. Their intent was the militia consisting of the common man to be armed with the same arms and ammunition as modern day standing armies.

All that said my reason for selling all my guns but my shotgun is simply this. There will likely be no mass confiscation if guns. Instead legislation will simply be passed as the one in Maryland to remove guns from people against their constitutional right to own, possess and bear them, in addition to further and stricter gun control legislation baring the purchase and ownership of most guns if not all. They will simply make laws so everyone is labeled mentally ill. “What’s that? You went to a psychiatrist after your daughter died in a car accident and you were depressed? I’m sorry depression is a mental illness. Per our new laws (in the future) your mentally ill and your gun rights are revoked, we’ll need to confiscate all your currently owned guns as well.” Sound unlikely and unreasonable? No sir! Not when the letter of the law and the the rule of law, legal prescient, and the clear and obvious gun rights supported by the Constitution and the framers own words are simply laid

Aside. So any and every excuse will be used to confiscate guns and abolish the purchase of new ones as well as abolition of gun rights period.

Many say “Come get my guns if that’s you’re intent.” They certainly will, not in mass with law enforcement and the military, they’ll just make sneaky legislation to do so. After all since the 1960’s they’ve already been simply disregarding what the Constitution says and making unconstitutional and illegal federal and state laws and not one person picked up a rifle and attempted to put a stop to it then or now. I don’t advocate doing so, I’m simply making the point that the only resistance has been political discourse and lobbying which has failed miserably. They’ve already gotten away with so much. Besides, with gun registration and the NSA does anyone really think they don’t know who has guns and if they intend armed opposition to any such future imperial decrees that no one will be ready for them? Does anyone really think they’re going to

To win? It’s too far gone. They will get rid of all the guns and circumvent any opposition by increasingly tighter anti gun legislation and finding any and every reason to sneakily disarm people from mental health reasons to any reason you can think of. They will do it individually one by one so the most opposition they’ll encounter at one time is the person whose guns they’re seizing today. Soon no one will have any guns and not be able to resist.

As I stated I do not advocate armed resistance in ANY WAY.

So rather than wait for the day they come to take mine, I’ll simply sell them and at least get money for them now, rather than have them taken and get nothing but possible legal problems and the consequences resulting from them from being in violation of some future imperial and unconstitutional decree in addition loosing out on the monetary value they have.

That’s my stance. That’s how I see things going in the future and I see no other way. If I’m wrong, I can always buy back

Some will say I’m paranoid however when probably half the population in addition to legislators, judges, politicians and governors seem to think the constitution is flexible, and play word games with words like “militia” and “infringed” and who has the right to “keep and bear arms” despite all the legal precedence and the words of the Constitutions framers themselves then what can realistically be done? Word games like requiring a pistol license in order to own, possess or carry a pistol somehow not defined INFRINGEMENT of a RIGHT not a privilege.

So that’s my stance. If I had it my way all gun laws would be repealed immediately, and no restrictions would be placed on small arms and only those with a criminal history of violence, those who are clearly a criminal threat or danger to themselves or others by their own statements and intent, and the mentally ill who are clearly incapable of reason, morality, or have

A condition in which separation from reality is part of the condition (schizophrenia, bi polar disorder, dementia ect) would not be allowed gun rights.

I know you didn’t ask for this much info and I’m not sure you intended to have a conversation about the 2nd Amendment or gun rights on my thread, I simply felt I needed to state my case from a legal perspective (which is air tight and undebatable) and state why I’m getting rid of my guns (which is speculation, but I see more than enough in past and current trends to support my rational). Some see my stance as defeat. I see it as logical and a way to avoid loosing money on items that I own that have substantial worth, because in the end attempting to fight this through physical means (again I don’t advocate that) will only result in one’s own injury or death, incarceration, legal problems, and life consequences no one wants and winning through political means is all but impossible.

To wrap it up I’m certain liberals will brand anyone and everyone who’s a conservative or Republican as a “right wing extremist or “white nationalist” or “Nazi” or whatever term they want to use to brand political opposition with a term that mars them as evil and bad so they can round them up and set up their long desired socialist or communist state.

I say this because I believe the people commonly referred to as liberals are in truth Bolsheviks. They are rabid and militant and will use any form of disinformation and lying from reinventing definitions of words to ignoring sound logic in order to achieve their goals. Soon they will be backed by the majority of America and seize power and when they do I’m sure they’ll come for all us right wingers to take us to their gulags. I know I sound paranoid or am I when ANTIFA does what it did at Tucker Carlson’s house, where violence is used against Trump supporters as their branded Nazis (and what could be wrong with beating up a Nazi),

I think the ultimate goal (although not stated, but clearly evident upon close examination) it to set up a socialist or communist state (not all just the leaders, everyone else are simply indoctrinated useful idiots who believe whatever those people tell them and act upon it accordingly) and will do so by lies, disinformation, and first and foremost eliminating any means of armed resistance.

Their intent is quite clear as most political concepts and ideologies from the left are clearly anti American and not in line with classical liberal constitutional republic. They are using the freedoms we have against the country with intent to make America just another socialist or communist state. It’s clear and obvious. They promote hedonism to degenerate the public’s morals, they lie and even change meanings of words to suit their narratives.

I’m in no way a conspiracy theorist, however what’s going on simply can’t be ignored. When everything is labeled xenophobic, homophobic,

Islamaphobic, racist, sexist or any other word to brand someone as bad or hateful or a concept or ideology, despite if it’s actually true then what can be said? What can be said when one can no longer speak without fear of being fired or publicly ostracized because what you said “offended” someone? It’s an attempt at thought and speech control. What for? Certainly people don’t attempt to control others with nointent in mind? Well that’s where you have to ask why we have politicians who are self proclaimed socialists and others who’s ideologies are riddled with communist and socialist influence but not the label of socialist or communist who are the ones promoting and advocating these things along with nearly every news channel (to include local news) and the same messages repeated constantly from songs, to movies, to sitcoms, but NOT conservative ideology. Those are branded as unenlightened and evil in the same way the other concepts are promoted.

So to determine what’s really going on we need look no further than what the leaders on the left espouse and what concepts and ideologies they espouse are to give us a good idea of what these peoples intents are and why they do what they do to influence thought and control others. I think there’s a loosely organized group of people on the left who hate America and want it done away with and want this to be a hedonistic socialist or communist state. I think their first agendas to achieve are thought and speech control, branding opposition as wrong and evil, and eliminating any opportunity to resist politically (political correctness and making everyone a victim who is offended by any right wing concepts) and physically (gun control). Otherwise what’s the intent? To make people think a certain way by repeating certain messages, lying, and braiding opposition as hateful just because? For no intended purpose? And roughly have the population agreed with the majority of their precepts?

Cops lost their minds these days they kill people over anything I am sure they didn't have to shoot him they could have took care of this another way but every night on the news there is another police shooting I am pretty sure when one cop sees someone has a thumb they say I see a thumb I need back up shoot to kill

First people were like "Just do what the officers say" when a certain group of people gets shot when they are unarmed. Then when Democrats want gun control (which doesn't mean taking your guns away) they're like "fuck the government we're gonna fight you with the second amendment". But now they're like "bIg GoVeRnMeNt iS kIlLiNg uS!"

Sadly the police were in pursuit of the law. They were doing their job if someone is prepared to use a gun or not to relinquish there weapon , they see a present dan ger , they will use deadly force. I don't know what happened in the house but he would have been warned...

They need to be more clear on what the red flag is. If he was a pedophile then they need to state that specifically. All this looks like right now is an excuse to barge into this persons home and take his guns without a good reason.

I never said he was a pedo - I was using it as a "Red Flag" example - Any description of his red flag may be a breach of privacy, if it was a mental health issue - Police will want that info to come out

Breach of privacy is just an excuse not to be transparent about why they need to take the guns. No I don’t agree, tell us the exact and specific reasons to forcibly enter a persons home and disarm them.